Need Advice: Supplier suddenly bill me when told it is FOC?

[Strong Eagle]

Agreed with all but what bothers me is why bill the delivery charges a year later ? Seems dodgy enough to me

That was the whole point of the OP's original post and he was jumped on for being naive, believing in free lunch, etc.

If there were charges associated for delivery, they should have been presented at time the equipment was delivered, or at worst, at the end of the month in an invoice.

To be billed for charges not specified almost a year later smacks of a rip off and I would not pay them. With no contract and no invoice, the supplier has no evidence he has any claim to any charges.

[ecureilx]

Agreed with all but what bothers me is why bill the delivery charges a year later ? Seems dodgy enough to me

just my 2 cents, having worked for distribution houses .. it happens, and happened, and will most likely happen

When the salesman forgot to include the 'delivery' FOC, or the buyer forgot to note delivery FOC, or the buyer forgot to confirm free-delivery, the delivery company, in most cases again outsourced, sees a hanging invoice and then goes after the supplier, and the supplier sees his / her buyer haven't paid, they will bill ...

And I am talking of large companies like Ingram Micro, SIS, and the like ..

Heck, I once got billed by Fedex, and after a week I figured out that our Cisco supplier shipped something and somehow Fedex lost the paperwork or supposed to be a free-replacement but, we also forgot to note that the terms of the replacement Didn't include shipping ..

I am not siding with the supplier, but then again, if the OP has been in business, he should know he has his responsibilty to make sure the terms are clear ...

Sort of like the Sentosa Underwater world, but the UWW is a bit of a scam .. Free Photo Taking, and when you head to collect the pictures, they ask you to pay, for the prints, and remind you "Free photo taking sir, but not free printing .. " I digress, but if you took the UWW staff as free photo includes free printing .. you gotta live in US ..

[Mad Scientist]

I understand where you are coming from Ecureilx and this is not about who having the last say but the point of contention is the date of billing of the delivery charges which was a year later.
IMHO, OP would not mind paying this bill but it is more of standing up to the moral of doing business.

In legal stand point a contractual agreement whether in tort or contract implied or otherwise is deem legal when two party i.e the buyer and seller comes into an agreement.

Now what follows is where OP is point of contention which is in my humble view deem justifiable.
Let's not talk about big or small companies. The law is there to follow and applied where I am coming from.

Innocent Misrepresentations

Misrepresentations may also be made innocently. In such a case, the claimant is not entitled to damages at common law, but where the claimant still has the right to rescind (and it appears beneficial to do so), the claimant may persuade the court to exercise its discretion under s 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act to award damages in lieu of rescission. If the court is not so persuaded and the contract is rescinded, the claimant may be compensated for expenses incurred in performing the contract in the form of an ‘indemnity’.

Misrepresentations and Terms

Misrepresentations are usually pre-contractual statements made to induce a person to contract with the representor. A pre-contractual statement which has induced a contract may also have been incorporated as a term of the contract. If so, the person who made the statement would now also be in breach of the contract if the statement turns out to be false. In such an event, damages for breach of contract may be claimed, and s 1 of the Misrepresentation Act makes it clear that the representee may still rescind the contract for misrepresentation. For the test for distinguishing between terms and representations,

Excluding Liability For Misrepresentation

Parties to a contract may agree to contractual terms which exclude or limit their liability for misrepresentation, but s 3 of the Misrepresentation Act requires such a term to satisfy the test of reasonableness set out in s 11(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed).

[ksl]

And I am talking of large companies like Ingram Micro, SIS, and the like ..

Well I've been in the PC component business and now in the import and distribution business, also dealt with Ingram Micro too...though that is all irrelevant, if you have studied business law, you will know better!

If the delivery charges are not on the bill, you will have a reasonable amount of time to correct it, as mistakes do happen.

In the OP's case he's got no worries at all if its the suppliers first communication in 6 months! We do not know anything of this case but the laws have it covered and it's mostly all commonsense and reasonable time frames.

Nobody knows what is going on. Maybe the supplier has been asking him to payup every week, though they would have to do it by mail, if they want to win the case and provide a separate invoice for transportation costs which is also a possibility that maybe denied..

It doesn't matter that the OP's customers case is closed, that is irrelevant. The person booking the delivery is the one that must pay, and that i suspect is the machine owner, who booked the transportation of the machine and delivered the machine to the OP's customer.

It could be a costly amount if its print machinery, in which case the transportation costs wouldn't be known until the job was done. So the OP only got the machine cost on the invoice for his customer, the OP gets the commission.

The OP should be aware he's got transportation costs to pay, though he's already got the invoice for the machine. We don't know the agreement between the two.

My guess is the OP is pulling a fast one and is ignoring the transport bill, for how long we don't really know.

If that is the case that the OP is trying it on, he will lose out...if there has been previous communication about transport costs. His invoice for the machine may not bear all the costs, as i suspect it's a heavy job, a lift job that takes time for packaging and delivery. Like print machines so there will be a separate invoice.

My guess is also that the OP has been working has a 3rd party salesman, and the supplier has agreed some terms with him on transportation costs.

I'm a perfectionist with ethics so it wouldn't happen to me Reputation is everything, though some Singaporeans are still thinking short term gains are better.

I have only one thing to say about business people in Singapore and that is to study business law and international laws, otherwise you may bump into me and end up on the losing end of the line has two heavy weights in Singapore have already found that out, and dragged it has far as it would go with their insurance companies and litigation, before settling with me out of court.

International business law is complex and Singapore business locals are no different to any other small business people trying to make their living. It's only when they meet someone that does business by the laws that are laid down, that they become worried, and will do their best to bluff their way out of accountability.

I'm a pro at what i do, as an export consultant I would be held liable for taking your products into another country, that's what I'm hired for, to ensure companies exporting don't cock up with technical hindrances like hidden tax, custom law's ,AVA, NEA and other formalities it's my business to have a certain understanding of international laws and local business laws.

I'm the one that would be checking your financials, without your knowledge, to see if you are worthy of becoming a reliable distributor, I know what is right and what is wrong in every market legally and if i don't i have to find out, and weigh up the opportunity cost benefits. So i have it pretty well covered in all, including those dummies in Sim Lim.

And I'm pretty sure SE with his work too includes digging up what he needs to know, to be on the safe side in project work.

So I guess my expertise is being a spy and knowing every move legally and illegally in the market place, that's what I'm hired to find out. As business is about market share and taking market share, identifying weaknesses and strengths is all part of the package.

Singapore is a great place for doing business even more, if you pull on the government organisations to work with. The OP or the supplier are just other obstacles to deal with in business, no big deal if you know some basics of the laws but ethics will keep you in the good books much longer than bad eithics and short term gains!

[sundaymorningstaple]

[ksl]

Is it not past your bed time

[elmobaby09]

And I am talking of large companies like Ingram Micro, SIS, and the like ..

Well I've been in the PC component business and now in the import and distribution business, also dealt with Ingram Micro too...though that is all irrelevant, if you have studied business law, you will know better!

If the delivery charges are not on the bill, you will have a reasonable amount of time to correct it, as mistakes do happen.

In the OP's case he's got no worries at all if its the suppliers first communication in 6 months! We do not know anything of this case but the laws have it covered and it's mostly all commonsense and reasonable time frames.

Nobody knows what is going on. Maybe the supplier has been asking him to payup every week, though they would have to do it by mail, if they want to win the case and provide a separate invoice for transportation costs which is also a possibility that maybe denied..

It doesn't matter that the OP's customers case is closed, that is irrelevant. The person booking the delivery is the one that must pay, and that i suspect is the machine owner, who booked the transportation of the machine and delivered the machine to the OP's customer.

It could be a costly amount if its print machinery, in which case the transportation costs wouldn't be known until the job was done. So the OP only got the machine cost on the invoice for his customer, the OP gets the commission.

The OP should be aware he's got transportation costs to pay, though he's already got the invoice for the machine. We don't know the agreement between the two.

My guess is the OP is pulling a fast one and is ignoring the transport bill, for how long we don't really know.

If that is the case that the OP is trying it on, he will lose out...if there has been previous communication about transport costs. His invoice for the machine may not bear all the costs, as i suspect it's a heavy job, a lift job that takes time for packaging and delivery. Like print machines so there will be a separate invoice.

My guess is also that the OP has been working has a 3rd party salesman, and the supplier has agreed some terms with him on transportation costs.

I'm a perfectionist with ethics so it wouldn't happen to me Reputation is everything, though some Singaporeans are still thinking short term gains are better.

I have only one thing to say about business people in Singapore and that is to study business law and international laws, otherwise you may bump into me and end up on the losing end of the line has two heavy weights in Singapore have already found that out, and dragged it has far as it would go with their insurance companies and litigation, before settling with me out of court.

International business law is complex and Singapore business locals are no different to any other small business people trying to make their living. It's only when they meet someone that does business by the laws that are laid down, that they become worried, and will do their best to bluff their way out of accountability.

I'm a pro at what i do, as an export consultant I would be held liable for taking your products into another country, that's what I'm hired for, to ensure companies exporting don't cock up with technical hindrances like hidden tax, custom law's ,AVA, NEA and other formalities it's my business to have a certain understanding of international laws and local business laws.

I'm the one that would be checking your financials, without your knowledge, to see if you are worthy of becoming a reliable distributor, I know what is right and what is wrong in every market legally and if i don't i have to find out, and weigh up the opportunity cost benefits. So i have it pretty well covered in all, including those dummies in Sim Lim.

And I'm pretty sure SE with his work too includes digging up what he needs to know, to be on the safe side in project work.

So I guess my expertise is being a spy and knowing every move legally and illegally in the market place, that's what I'm hired to find out. As business is about market share and taking market share, identifying weaknesses and strengths is all part of the package.

Singapore is a great place for doing business even more, if you pull on the government organisations to work with. The OP or the supplier are just other obstacles to deal with in business, no big deal if you know some basics of the laws but ethics will keep you in the good books much longer than bad eithics and short term gains!

Well, I've already mentioned before and whether you guys believe it , it is up to individual.

Like what MadScientist said, "I would not mind paying the transportation charges" if they have told me earlier not more thn 1 year later. There is NO INVOICE, NO EMAIL, NO CALL, NOTHING AT ALL!!! Not until more thn 1 year later which i personally find it ridiculous and without any agreement for both parties. You can quote whatever amount you want and NO, they are using their own company trunk to transport so there is no such 3rd party fee involve as far as I know and there won't hv the so-called billing lost in transist. You guys can said whatever you want of me pocketing the commission which i did not, kind of wana put my company in good book for my client so as having repeating sales.

[ksl]

No one is accusing anyone of anything! If it's the way you say it is, there shouldn't be much they can do!

You guys can said whatever you want of me pocketing the commission which i did not, kind of wana put my company in good book for my client so as having repeating sales.

So did your client buy the machine from them or from you?

I wouldn't worry too much about it, 1 year is too long, if its their machine and their transport, it's their problem, not yours.

[elmobaby09]

No one is accusing anyone of anything! If it's the way you say it is, there shouldn't be much they can do!

You guys can said whatever you want of me pocketing the commission which i did not, kind of wana put my company in good book for my client so as having repeating sales.

So did your client buy the machine from them or from you?

I wouldn't worry too much about it, 1 year is too long, if its their machine and their transport, it's their problem, not yours.

My client required my company solutions & services and having that equipment helps to move things faster. So they will not purchase the machine but more of me, i am hunting for a machinery for my up-coming project with another client but definitelty not going to buy from this dishonest supplier.

[ksl]

No one is accusing anyone of anything! If it's the way you say it is, there shouldn't be much they can do!

You guys can said whatever you want of me pocketing the commission which i did not, kind of wana put my company in good book for my client so as having repeating sales.

So did your client buy the machine from them or from you?

I wouldn't worry too much about it, 1 year is too long, if its their machine and their transport, it's their problem, not yours.

My client required my company solutions & services and having that equipment helps to move things faster. So they will not purchase the machine but more of me, i am hunting for a machinery for my up-coming project with another client but definitely not going to buy from this dishonest supplier.

Well you said it yourself, you cannot expect a company to deliver a machine not purchase it, then have to come and collect it for return, free of charge! Logic tells you that! It's now becoming more obvious about your ethics, logic would tell you if your client isn't going to purchase the machine, the company will have to collect and return it to base, and you expect delivery and collection free of charge, come on get real! Personally I have no sympathy for you or anyone like you, if that's the kind of mentality you have!

It's very clear to me now that you are very naive, to try and tell any arbitrary court, or anyone else that you didn't expect to pay any transportation costs. Courts will look at what is reasonable and you are very unreasonable to think you can pull it off! My guess is if they pursue you to the SCT you will lose, even after a year, for the simple reason, that logic is at play and you have ignored it. Ignorance is not bliss and you will find that out! You are asking everyone to believe you didn't know, when you should have known it's commonsense. So it's not a matter of do we believe who is telling the truth in this case, it's what is the obvious!

Let's hope that all machine manufacturers are reading this thread, so they will be ready for you when you arrive It looks more like you have ordered the machine for your client, which would have been transport free, then your client has been unhappy with the machine, changed his mind! That's a no no and you should have known better that transportation costs would be involved you being kind to your client at the companies expense doesn't work!

[JR8]

Amazing how this thread has polarised opinion!

p.s. I'm in the 'If they didn't tell you about costs, and you never agreed to any, and they only bill you a year later, then they can go and jump in a lake' camp.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I'm in the sit back and watch the pi$$ing contest camp!

[ksl]

Amazing how this thread has polarised opinion!

p.s. I'm in the 'If they didn't tell you about costs, and you never agreed to any, and they only bill you a year later, then they can go and jump in a lake' camp.

I agree with you on the polarisation, but my experience of companies delevering machinese, would never forget this kind of cost especially when it's through another party for his client.

If it's really been a year since first contact, then yes I agree that the time limit is over stretched, though it's down to benefit of doubt, if it's been a verbal agreement on the chance the client does purchase the machine. I would have to hold with the commonsense and choose, a verbal agreement isn't easy to prove, so when logic is applied, it makes for a fool. The benefit of doubt on a verbal agreement, would be given to the obvious. So I'm not taking sides, I'm taking bets Though will the OP return with the outcome?

[Mad Scientist]

[sundaymorningstaple]

^^^^

+1